 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Cost benefits of "going green"... |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| ta... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"The Actual Costs of Owning a Home are the MONTHLY COSTS, NOT the
Purchase Price
Actual Costs = Monthly Costs + Hidden Costs
It is a misconception that the more we reduce a building's
environmental footprint, the more money we have to spend. While it is
true that many "greener" options will require more hard earned
dollars, the best options will actually save you money from the very
first month.
Payback is one way of looking at an energy investment. For example: if
one spends 30k dollars on a PV solar system, how many months or years
will it take to make that money back in lower, monthly energy bills?
There are some serious flaws to using a payback approach:
1. Most people finance, which changes the initial purchase price into
monthly, mortgage payments.
2. Monthly, energy bills are always rising and increasingly unstable
making future calculations only a guess.
3. Payback does not account for the millions of hidden costs
associated with nuclear and fossil fuel use and dependency.
Purchase Price versus Monthly payments
People buying a home do not really pay the purchase price. Mortgage
payments + energy/utility payments are the actual costs one pays to
live in a home. The best investments add only a few dollars to your
mortgage payment, but will bring your energy bills down by double or
triple that amount, saving money from the first month of occupancy.
Forget the earth, invest in yourself.
The best investment in our climate is always an air-tight,
continuously-insulated envelope. Secondly, heating/cooling systems
since they represent the largest portion of monthly, energy costs.
Money spent in these two areas can increase monthly-mortgage payments
slightly, but will dramatically reduce monthly-energy bills.
Financing offers you the ability to own a home. It also offers an
opportunity to save alot by spending a little.
The right building envelope and space conditioning investments
outperform almost any other investments and dramatically reduces
environmental impact (if you're into that kinda thing).
Mortgage + Monthly Energy Bills =Actual Cost of Home
example:
Conventionally built green home
$750 + $100 = $850
Passive Solar, SIP built Green home
$756 + $42 =
$798
This home would have a higher purchase price and mortgage payment, but
from the first month of occupancy it would be more affordable. It
would also be more comfortable, better protected from rising energy
costs, safe in a winter power outage, and would enjoy a probable,
higher re-sale value with less days on the market. It would also be
half of the environmental foot-print of the other "green" home."
http://www.springtimehomes.com/green_building_costs |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 11:40 am, ta <padl... at (no spam) nc.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]
2. Monthly, energy bills are always rising.....
[/quote]
The increasing cost of energy is a consequence of insulating homes.
Rules of "supply and demand", in a free market, the more a product is
used the cheaper the supply of it gets. Costs of production spread
over a greater number will always reduce the per unit cost.
If you really want your energy costs to drop then stop insulating your
homes.
If you want to make something expensive then you just vote to make it
compulsory.
And soooo, if you really want cheaper energy and cheaper insulation,
then just tell the anti-human fucking greenies (thats all of them) to
fuck off.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tg... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 9:40 pm, ta <padl... at (no spam) nc.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]"The Actual Costs of Owning a Home are the MONTHLY COSTS, NOT the
Purchase Price
Actual Costs = Monthly Costs + Hidden Costs
It is a misconception that the more we reduce a building's
environmental footprint, the more money we have to spend. While it is
true that many "greener" options will require more hard earned
dollars, the best options will actually save you money from the very
first month.
Payback is one way of looking at an energy investment. For example: if
one spends 30k dollars on a PV solar system, how many months or years
will it take to make that money back in lower, monthly energy bills?
There are some serious flaws to using a payback approach:
1. Most people finance, which changes the initial purchase price into
monthly, mortgage payments.
2. Monthly, energy bills are always rising and increasingly unstable
making future calculations only a guess.
3. Payback does not account for the millions of hidden costs
associated with nuclear and fossil fuel use and dependency.
Purchase Price versus Monthly payments
People buying a home do not really pay the purchase price. Mortgage
payments + energy/utility payments are the actual costs one pays to
live in a home. The best investments add only a few dollars to your
mortgage payment, but will bring your energy bills down by double or
triple that amount, saving money from the first month of occupancy.
Forget the earth, invest in yourself.
The best investment in our climate is always an air-tight,
continuously-insulated envelope. Secondly, heating/cooling systems
since they represent the largest portion of monthly, energy costs.
Money spent in these two areas can increase monthly-mortgage payments
slightly, but will dramatically reduce monthly-energy bills.
Financing offers you the ability to own a home. It also offers an
opportunity to save alot by spending a little.
The right building envelope and space conditioning investments
outperform almost any other investments and dramatically reduces
environmental impact (if you're into that kinda thing).
Mortgage + Monthly Energy Bills =Actual Cost of Home
example:
Conventionally built green home
$750 + $100 = $850
Passive Solar, SIP built Green home
$756 + $42 > $798
This home would have a higher purchase price and mortgage payment, but
from the first month of occupancy it would be more affordable. It
would also be more comfortable, better protected from rising energy
costs, safe in a winter power outage, and would enjoy a probable,
higher re-sale value with less days on the market. It would also be
half of the environmental foot-print of the other "green" home."
[/quote]
Ta, people have simply been brainwashed into this payback nonsense.
When someone puts a weird ugly turret on a McMansion, what is the
'payback'? Why are features having to do with energy consumption
subject to this analysis when others aren't? Why do people renovate
kitchens and baths when the fact that they will never recoup their
investment has been well established for decades?
As the article points out, a well built well insulated house will be
more comfortable to live in and have a better resale value than one
that isn't, and that's no matter what happens to the climate or oil
prices or anything else. Duh.
-tg
> http://www.springtimehomes.com/green_building_costs |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ta... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 8:12 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 9:40 pm, ta <padl... at (no spam) nc.rr.com> wrote:
"The Actual Costs of Owning a Home are the MONTHLY COSTS, NOT the
Purchase Price
Actual Costs = Monthly Costs + Hidden Costs
It is a misconception that the more we reduce a building's
environmental footprint, the more money we have to spend. While it is
true that many "greener" options will require more hard earned
dollars, the best options will actually save you money from the very
first month.
Payback is one way of looking at an energy investment. For example: if
one spends 30k dollars on a PV solar system, how many months or years
will it take to make that money back in lower, monthly energy bills?
There are some serious flaws to using a payback approach:
1. Most people finance, which changes the initial purchase price into
monthly, mortgage payments.
2. Monthly, energy bills are always rising and increasingly unstable
making future calculations only a guess.
3. Payback does not account for the millions of hidden costs
associated with nuclear and fossil fuel use and dependency.
Purchase Price versus Monthly payments
People buying a home do not really pay the purchase price. Mortgage
payments + energy/utility payments are the actual costs one pays to
live in a home. The best investments add only a few dollars to your
mortgage payment, but will bring your energy bills down by double or
triple that amount, saving money from the first month of occupancy.
Forget the earth, invest in yourself.
The best investment in our climate is always an air-tight,
continuously-insulated envelope. Secondly, heating/cooling systems
since they represent the largest portion of monthly, energy costs.
Money spent in these two areas can increase monthly-mortgage payments
slightly, but will dramatically reduce monthly-energy bills.
Financing offers you the ability to own a home. It also offers an
opportunity to save alot by spending a little.
The right building envelope and space conditioning investments
outperform almost any other investments and dramatically reduces
environmental impact (if you're into that kinda thing).
Mortgage + Monthly Energy Bills =Actual Cost of Home
example:
Conventionally built green home
$750 + $100 = $850
Passive Solar, SIP built Green home
$756 + $42 > > $798
This home would have a higher purchase price and mortgage payment, but
from the first month of occupancy it would be more affordable. It
would also be more comfortable, better protected from rising energy
costs, safe in a winter power outage, and would enjoy a probable,
higher re-sale value with less days on the market. It would also be
half of the environmental foot-print of the other "green" home."
Ta, people have simply been brainwashed into this payback nonsense.
When someone puts a weird ugly turret on a McMansion, what is the
'payback'? Why are features having to do with energy consumption
subject to this analysis when others aren't? Why do people renovate
kitchens and baths when the fact that they will never recoup their
investment has been well established for decades?
[/quote]
I agree with you that cost/benefit should not be the sole
consideration for "building green". But even if you narrowly define
"cost" in terms of constructions costs, it *still* works out in your
favor, even in the short term (depending of course on how "green" you
really go).
[quote]As the article points out, a well built well insulated house will be
more comfortable to live in and have a better resale value than one
that isn't, and that's no matter what happens to the climate or oil
prices or anything else. Duh.
-tg
http://www.springtimehomes.com/green_building_costs[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ta... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 9:04 am, ZerkonXXXX <Z... at (no spam) erkonx.net> wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:40:47 -0800, ta wrote:
It is a misconception that the more we reduce a building's environmental
footprint, the more money we have to spend. While it is true that many
"greener" options will require more hard earned dollars, the best
options will actually save you money from the very first month.
I may add..
What has been forced as a conception that all these 'green' costs will
remain fixed as being higher. One the one hand grand speak of market
forces but when it comes to alternatives suddenly we have perpetually
higher costs, the market forces now suddenly absent.
[/quote]
Indeed.
[quote]The dollar and cents of it all is certainly an issue, however, much more
of a benefit is realized.
[/quote]
Agreed . . . you can't define "cost" and "benefit" in such narrow
terms.
[quote]Payback does not account for the millions of hidden costs
associated with nuclear and fossil fuel use and dependency.
Just say it! War is one such hidden cost.
[/quote]
Not so hidden really. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ta... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 3:52 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 11:40 am, ta <padl... at (no spam) nc.rr.com> wrote:
2. Monthly, energy bills are always rising.....
The increasing cost of energy is a consequence of insulating homes.
[/quote]
A good illustration of "magical thinking" common to many "free market
libertarians".
[quote]Rules of "supply and demand", in a free market, the more a product is
used the cheaper the supply of it gets. Costs of production spread
over a greater number will always reduce the per unit cost.
[/quote]
So let's say we must eat diamonds to survive, and there are only 500
diamonds left on the face of the earth. You're saying that an
increased demand for diamonds will *lower* the cost of diamonds?
Wow.
[quote]If you really want your energy costs to drop then stop insulating your
homes.
If you want to make something expensive then you just vote to make it
compulsory.
And soooo, if you really want cheaper energy and cheaper insulation,
then just tell the anti-human fucking greenies (thats all of them) to
fuck off.
MG[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tg... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 10:25 am, ta <paddle... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 8:12 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:40 pm, ta <padl... at (no spam) nc.rr.com> wrote:
"The Actual Costs of Owning a Home are the MONTHLY COSTS, NOT the
Purchase Price
Actual Costs = Monthly Costs + Hidden Costs
It is a misconception that the more we reduce a building's
environmental footprint, the more money we have to spend. While it is
true that many "greener" options will require more hard earned
dollars, the best options will actually save you money from the very
first month.
Payback is one way of looking at an energy investment. For example: if
one spends 30k dollars on a PV solar system, how many months or years
will it take to make that money back in lower, monthly energy bills?
There are some serious flaws to using a payback approach:
1. Most people finance, which changes the initial purchase price into
monthly, mortgage payments.
2. Monthly, energy bills are always rising and increasingly unstable
making future calculations only a guess.
3. Payback does not account for the millions of hidden costs
associated with nuclear and fossil fuel use and dependency.
Purchase Price versus Monthly payments
People buying a home do not really pay the purchase price. Mortgage
payments + energy/utility payments are the actual costs one pays to
live in a home. The best investments add only a few dollars to your
mortgage payment, but will bring your energy bills down by double or
triple that amount, saving money from the first month of occupancy.
Forget the earth, invest in yourself.
The best investment in our climate is always an air-tight,
continuously-insulated envelope. Secondly, heating/cooling systems
since they represent the largest portion of monthly, energy costs.
Money spent in these two areas can increase monthly-mortgage payments
slightly, but will dramatically reduce monthly-energy bills.
Financing offers you the ability to own a home. It also offers an
opportunity to save alot by spending a little.
The right building envelope and space conditioning investments
outperform almost any other investments and dramatically reduces
environmental impact (if you're into that kinda thing).
Mortgage + Monthly Energy Bills =Actual Cost of Home
example:
Conventionally built green home
$750 + $100 = $850
Passive Solar, SIP built Green home
$756 + $42 > > > $798
This home would have a higher purchase price and mortgage payment, but
from the first month of occupancy it would be more affordable. It
would also be more comfortable, better protected from rising energy
costs, safe in a winter power outage, and would enjoy a probable,
higher re-sale value with less days on the market. It would also be
half of the environmental foot-print of the other "green" home."
Ta, people have simply been brainwashed into this payback nonsense.
When someone puts a weird ugly turret on a McMansion, what is the
'payback'? Why are features having to do with energy consumption
subject to this analysis when others aren't? Why do people renovate
kitchens and baths when the fact that they will never recoup their
investment has been well established for decades?
I agree with you that cost/benefit should not be the sole
consideration for "building green". But even if you narrowly define
"cost" in terms of constructions costs, it *still* works out in your
favor, even in the short term (depending of course on how "green" you
really go).
[/quote]
I'm not so sure, from my research into building. I think you have to
be careful (as with the health care business) not to allow the
discussion to be framed by the opposition, and that's partially what's
going on here. It is all a shell game, and you have to realize how
vulnerable people are to that.
The choice isn't presented as having insulation or not having
insulation; it is presented as a place with those ugly turrets v a
place without them, for the same price. People will always pick the
ugly turrets, because they think that will impress people. So the cost
benefit for them is not the same as it is for us. Face it, with all
the talk about efficient cars, the buzz is still all about cupholders
and 'styling'.
This is a very tough problem, and I don't think it gets solved without
Gummint Socialist building standards. That way there's a level playing
field.
-tg
[quote]
As the article points out, a well built well insulated house will be
more comfortable to live in and have a better resale value than one
that isn't, and that's no matter what happens to the climate or oil
prices or anything else. Duh.
-tg
http://www.springtimehomes.com/green_building_costs[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PeterD... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:40:47 -0800 (PST), ta <padlrnc at (no spam) spam.rr.com>
wrote:
[quote]"The Actual Costs of
[/quote]
spamming Usenet are much, much greater. Trust me, NO BODY uses a
spammer's services or products because spammers are by definition
dishonest, willing to stoop to any low life means to make a quick
buck. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ZerkonXXXX... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:40:47 -0800, ta wrote:
[quote]It is a misconception that the more we reduce a building's environmental
footprint, the more money we have to spend. While it is true that many
"greener" options will require more hard earned dollars, the best
options will actually save you money from the very first month.
[/quote]
I may add..
What has been forced as a conception that all these 'green' costs will
remain fixed as being higher. One the one hand grand speak of market
forces but when it comes to alternatives suddenly we have perpetually
higher costs, the market forces now suddenly absent.
The dollar and cents of it all is certainly an issue, however, much more
of a benefit is realized.
[quote]Payback does not account for the millions of hidden costs
associated with nuclear and fossil fuel use and dependency.
[/quote]
Just say it! War is one such hidden cost. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ZerkonXXXX... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:52:18 -0800, Michael Gordge wrote:
[quote]Rules of "supply and demand", in a free market, the more a product is
used the cheaper the supply of it gets. Costs of production spread over
a greater number will always reduce the per unit cost.
[/quote]
What?!? Wrong. Why do gas prices always go up during seasons of high use?
It is supply and demand. Decrease demand (should) equal higher supply
(inventory backlog) therefore cheaper costs (to get rid of inventory). If
high demand depletes supplies, price increases.
If the product is a necessity, all bets are off. There is no "FREE"
market place if one must buy the product.
[quote]If you really want your energy costs to drop then stop insulating your
homes
[/quote]
I didn't believe it but the rumors are apparently true, you are a put on!
Funny, MG. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ta... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 11:59 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 10:25 am, ta <paddle... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 8:12 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:40 pm, ta <padl... at (no spam) nc.rr.com> wrote:
"The Actual Costs of Owning a Home are the MONTHLY COSTS, NOT the
Purchase Price
Actual Costs = Monthly Costs + Hidden Costs
It is a misconception that the more we reduce a building's
environmental footprint, the more money we have to spend. While it is
true that many "greener" options will require more hard earned
dollars, the best options will actually save you money from the very
first month.
Payback is one way of looking at an energy investment. For example: if
one spends 30k dollars on a PV solar system, how many months or years
will it take to make that money back in lower, monthly energy bills?
There are some serious flaws to using a payback approach:
1. Most people finance, which changes the initial purchase price into
monthly, mortgage payments.
2. Monthly, energy bills are always rising and increasingly unstable
making future calculations only a guess.
3. Payback does not account for the millions of hidden costs
associated with nuclear and fossil fuel use and dependency.
Purchase Price versus Monthly payments
People buying a home do not really pay the purchase price. Mortgage
payments + energy/utility payments are the actual costs one pays to
live in a home. The best investments add only a few dollars to your
mortgage payment, but will bring your energy bills down by double or
triple that amount, saving money from the first month of occupancy.
Forget the earth, invest in yourself.
The best investment in our climate is always an air-tight,
continuously-insulated envelope. Secondly, heating/cooling systems
since they represent the largest portion of monthly, energy costs.
Money spent in these two areas can increase monthly-mortgage payments
slightly, but will dramatically reduce monthly-energy bills.
Financing offers you the ability to own a home. It also offers an
opportunity to save alot by spending a little.
The right building envelope and space conditioning investments
outperform almost any other investments and dramatically reduces
environmental impact (if you're into that kinda thing).
Mortgage + Monthly Energy Bills =Actual Cost of Home
example:
Conventionally built green home
$750 + $100 = $850
Passive Solar, SIP built Green home
$756 + $42 > > > > $798
This home would have a higher purchase price and mortgage payment, but
from the first month of occupancy it would be more affordable. It
would also be more comfortable, better protected from rising energy
costs, safe in a winter power outage, and would enjoy a probable,
higher re-sale value with less days on the market. It would also be
half of the environmental foot-print of the other "green" home."
Ta, people have simply been brainwashed into this payback nonsense.
When someone puts a weird ugly turret on a McMansion, what is the
'payback'? Why are features having to do with energy consumption
subject to this analysis when others aren't? Why do people renovate
kitchens and baths when the fact that they will never recoup their
investment has been well established for decades?
I agree with you that cost/benefit should not be the sole
consideration for "building green". But even if you narrowly define
"cost" in terms of constructions costs, it *still* works out in your
favor, even in the short term (depending of course on how "green" you
really go).
I'm not so sure, from my research into building.
[/quote]
So you're not buying the math provided by the builder above?
[quote]I think you have to
be careful (as with the health care business) not to allow the
discussion to be framed by the opposition, and that's partially what's
going on here. It is all a shell game, and you have to realize how
vulnerable people are to that.
The choice isn't presented as having insulation or not having
insulation; it is presented as a place with those ugly turrets v a
place without them, for the same price. People will always pick the
ugly turrets, because they think that will impress people. So the cost
benefit for them is not the same as it is for us. Face it, with all
the talk about efficient cars, the buzz is still all about cupholders
and 'styling'.
This is a very tough problem, and I don't think it gets solved without
Gummint Socialist building standards. That way there's a level playing
field.
-tg
[/quote]
NC has implemented some "healthy built home" standards, which helps
set the bar at least minimally low.
http://healthybuilthomes.org/
[quote]
As the article points out, a well built well insulated house will be
more comfortable to live in and have a better resale value than one
that isn't, and that's no matter what happens to the climate or oil
prices or anything else. Duh.
-tg
http://www.springtimehomes.com/green_building_costs[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tg... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 2:43 pm, ta <paddle... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 11:59 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 6, 10:25 am, ta <paddle... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 8:12 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:40 pm, ta <padl... at (no spam) nc.rr.com> wrote:
"The Actual Costs of Owning a Home are the MONTHLY COSTS, NOT the
Purchase Price
Actual Costs = Monthly Costs + Hidden Costs
It is a misconception that the more we reduce a building's
environmental footprint, the more money we have to spend. While it is
true that many "greener" options will require more hard earned
dollars, the best options will actually save you money from the very
first month.
Payback is one way of looking at an energy investment. For example: if
one spends 30k dollars on a PV solar system, how many months or years
will it take to make that money back in lower, monthly energy bills?
There are some serious flaws to using a payback approach:
1. Most people finance, which changes the initial purchase price into
monthly, mortgage payments.
2. Monthly, energy bills are always rising and increasingly unstable
making future calculations only a guess.
3. Payback does not account for the millions of hidden costs
associated with nuclear and fossil fuel use and dependency.
Purchase Price versus Monthly payments
People buying a home do not really pay the purchase price. Mortgage
payments + energy/utility payments are the actual costs one pays to
live in a home. The best investments add only a few dollars to your
mortgage payment, but will bring your energy bills down by double or
triple that amount, saving money from the first month of occupancy.
Forget the earth, invest in yourself.
The best investment in our climate is always an air-tight,
continuously-insulated envelope. Secondly, heating/cooling systems
since they represent the largest portion of monthly, energy costs.
Money spent in these two areas can increase monthly-mortgage payments
slightly, but will dramatically reduce monthly-energy bills.
Financing offers you the ability to own a home. It also offers an
opportunity to save alot by spending a little.
The right building envelope and space conditioning investments
outperform almost any other investments and dramatically reduces
environmental impact (if you're into that kinda thing).
Mortgage + Monthly Energy Bills =Actual Cost of Home
example:
Conventionally built green home
$750 + $100 = $850
Passive Solar, SIP built Green home
$756 + $42 > > > > > $798
This home would have a higher purchase price and mortgage payment, but
from the first month of occupancy it would be more affordable. It
would also be more comfortable, better protected from rising energy
costs, safe in a winter power outage, and would enjoy a probable,
higher re-sale value with less days on the market. It would also be
half of the environmental foot-print of the other "green" home."
Ta, people have simply been brainwashed into this payback nonsense.
When someone puts a weird ugly turret on a McMansion, what is the
'payback'? Why are features having to do with energy consumption
subject to this analysis when others aren't? Why do people renovate
kitchens and baths when the fact that they will never recoup their
investment has been well established for decades?
I agree with you that cost/benefit should not be the sole
consideration for "building green". But even if you narrowly define
"cost" in terms of constructions costs, it *still* works out in your
favor, even in the short term (depending of course on how "green" you
really go).
I'm not so sure, from my research into building.
So you're not buying the math provided by the builder above?
[/quote]
It's that pesky quantitative thinking reflex ;-)
I would say that for an identical house, less than 1 percent
difference in construction cost is suspicious----and then more than
twice the energy use is even more suspicious.
I think what I say below applies---the houses aren't really the same,
and there's a lot of hand-waving going on.
[quote]
I think you have to
be careful (as with the health care business) not to allow the
discussion to be framed by the opposition, and that's partially what's
going on here. It is all a shell game, and you have to realize how
vulnerable people are to that.
The choice isn't presented as having insulation or not having
insulation; it is presented as a place with those ugly turrets v a
place without them, for the same price. People will always pick the
ugly turrets, because they think that will impress people. So the cost
benefit for them is not the same as it is for us. Face it, with all
the talk about efficient cars, the buzz is still all about cupholders
and 'styling'.
This is a very tough problem, and I don't think it gets solved without
Gummint Socialist building standards. That way there's a level playing
field.
-tg
NC has implemented some "healthy built home" standards, which helps
set the bar at least minimally low.
[/quote]
I know, we've discussed this at length in the past. I would write
really tough standards.
-tg
[quote]http://healthybuilthomes.org/
As the article points out, a well built well insulated house will be
more comfortable to live in and have a better resale value than one
that isn't, and that's no matter what happens to the climate or oil
prices or anything else. Duh.
-tg
http://www.springtimehomes.com/green_building_costs[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Stafford... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 3:52 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]The increasing cost of energy is a consequence of insulating homes.
[/quote]
Not. The cost of natural gas in my area has dropped.
[quote]Rules of "supply and demand", in a free market, the more a product is
used the cheaper the supply of it gets. Costs of production spread
over a greater number will always reduce the per unit cost.
If you really want your energy costs to drop then stop insulating your
homes.
[/quote]
Let's all live outdoors and natural gas will become free? What are you
smoking? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| turtoni... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
tg wrote:
(snip)
You write like Joseph Stalin. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tim... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"John Stafford" <nhoj at (no spam) droffats.net> wrote in message
news:nhoj-EB52AD.15212006112009 at (no spam) news.supernews.com...
[quote]On Nov 6, 3:52 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
The increasing cost of energy is a consequence of insulating homes.
Not. The cost of natural gas in my area has dropped.
Rules of "supply and demand", in a free market, the more a product is
used the cheaper the supply of it gets. Costs of production spread
over a greater number will always reduce the per unit cost.
If you really want your energy costs to drop then stop insulating your
homes.
Let's all live outdoors and natural gas will become free? What are you
smoking?
[/quote]
He's smoking ayn rand novels. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:47 am
|
|